00 gauge Standards

[martin_wynne]

Minimum wheel width can be as small as 2.1mm without noticeable wheel drop. 

 

Hi Terry,

 

Is that with prototypical blunt-nose vees, or sharp model vees?

 

This seems to be a factor which has been ignored in all the traditional standards. Prototype bullhead vees are 3/4" wide at the nose, which equates to 0.25mm in 4mm/ft scale. That's a significant component in calculating minimum wheel widths.

 

To anyone familiar with prototype track, knife-edge sharp vees do look awful, but appear to be necessary to make some standards work, for example the original 00 BRMSB standard, or the Gauge 0 Guild standards.

 

It's not an idle consideration, because it affects the placing of the vees on the printed templates, which is especially important in constructing diamond-crossings and slips. See this typical Templot template:

 

 

And other templates would be similar.

 

In Templot you can change the blunt-nose width to zero, which adjusts the timber positions to support the tip of sharp-nose vees. Although that's not something most beginners would think of or know about doing. Having a sharp-nose vee hanging in fresh air between the timbers makes it look even worse.

 

My advice to beginners would be to make blunt-nose vees, so that they look prototypical, and when placed on the usual templates the rail edges align correctly. But in that case Terry's note on wheel widths above is wrong (along with many published standards). The minimum wheel width for use with blunt-nose vees in 4-SF (00-SF), DOGA-Fine, and EM, is 2.3mm.

 

I object to the terms "noticeable" wheel drop, or "significant" wheel drop, as if that makes it acceptable. Prototype wheels do not drop into crossings at all, they remain fully supported on the rails. There is no reason why model wheels should not do the same, allowing them to run so much more smoothly through pointwork.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[martin_wynne]

Most have different flange profiles. Lots of different profiles work OK, some track better than others. The critical limits are for  00-SF crossing K,s are minimum wheel back to back 14.35mm (scale curves) and 14.4mm for typical model railway curves  and a wheel check gauge( front of flange to back of opposite wheel) 15.2mm. Minimum wheel width can be as small as 2.1mm without noticeable wheel drop.

 

Terry, the dimensions for 4-SF (00-SF) are here: http://4-sf.uk/dimensions.htm

 

It is no help to beginners whatsoever if people come on here quoting contradictory numbers. If you have your own standard with different numbers give it your own name, don't call it 00-SF. The dimensions you have quoted for 00-SF above are not correct.

 

Your own slightly different standard is at: http://www.amra.asn.au/finewheeltrack.pdf

 

Apologies for the red ink and underlining -- someone will be advising me to sit down with a nice boiled egg. Which is exactly what I am about to do for breakfast.

 

Martin.

[polybear]

 

I object to the terms "noticeable" wheel drop, or "significant" wheel drop, as if that makes it acceptable.

 These terms also make it subjective to the person viewing the layout

[nswgr1855]

Terry, the dimensions for 4-SF (00-SF) are here: http://4-sf.uk/dimensions.htm

 

It is no help to beginners whatsoever if people come on here quoting contradictory numbers. If you have your own standard with different numbers give it your own name, don't call it 00-SF. The dimensions you have quoted for 00-SF above are not correct.

 

Your own slightly different standard is at: http://www.amra.asn.au/finewheeltrack.pdf

 

Apologies for the red ink and underlining -- someone will be advising me to sit down with a nice boiled egg. Which is exactly what I am about to do for breakfast.

 

Martin.

 

Hello Martin,

 

The value I quoted for wheel back to back of 14.35mm for scale curved K crossings is the correctly calculated minimum value that is derived from the  00-SF limits of minimum check gauge and minimum flange way in a K crossing. 14.4mm is a better minimum wheel back to back for crossings with typical model railway curves. No matter how I calculate it, the result for a K crossing results in a track gauge larger than 16.2mm if you apply a practical tolerance, Like the DOGA standard and the 1970's EM standard, 00-SF also does not add up, your maximum check face to check face span is incorrect hence the incorrect minimum wheel back to back. This is why the AMRA standard works out slightly different.

 

I would suggest for the beginner quoting the correctly caculated back to back for 00-SF results in zero problems. Also quoting the correctly caculated dimensions for constructing the K crossing is beneficial for all.

 

I recommend for 00-SF, If building a K crossing we use a track gauge of 16.25mm to 16.30mm and a flange way gap of 1mm to 1.05mm, If you have a better solution for 00-SF, I will gladly promote and recommend it.

 

Cheers,

 

Terry Flynn.

[hayfield]

All these very technical arguments are fine for some but do really miss the point for the average 00 gauge modeller

 

The bulk of 00 gauge users buy RTR products and as far as track is concerned buys either set track (Hornby or Peco) or dabbles in flexi track. Quite logically they buy models in 00 gauge and rightly expect the models to work on track labelled 00 gauge

 

Most (but not all) are aware some vintage stock will only work on track with code 100 rail. Looking at an advert from one of the big boys states "Peco finescale 00 code 75 track"

 

Given that the bulk of 00 gauge modellers believe 00 gauge is what is known 00-BF, Finescale denoting the use of code 75 rail, code 100 being coarse scale

 

To those in the know, what's in a name? I guess Martin is correct in altering 00sf 's name to 4sf. In the same vein the DOGS perhaps to stop any confusion from Joe public rename their gauges, so the modellers they are purporting to serve who are not aware of the various standards in track building, alter the names of their gauge standards to reflect the average modellers understanding of our scale gauge combination.  DOGA intermediate as its so close to 00bf would if used with code 75 become 00 finescale, As for DOGA fine whilst the gauge is the same as 00 gauge the standards used for wing and check rails are clearly are not compatible with standard 00 gauge

 

Having a common name for the same gauge standards must be the way forward and removing any reference/innuendo to 00 gauge name will be a good step forward in clearing up any confusion and hopefully push the manufacturers into adhering to a common compattable standard

[roythebus]

I'm confused and I've been modelling for well over 50 years now!!

[martin_wynne]

The value I quoted for wheel back to back of 14.35mm for scale curved K crossings is the correctly calculated minimum value that is derived from the  00-SF limits of minimum check gauge and minimum flange way in a K crossing. 14.4mm is a better minimum wheel back to back for crossings with typical model railway curves.

 

Hi Terry,

 

As the originator of the designation "00-SF" I reserve the right to say what it means. The 00-SF dimensions are here: http://4-sf.uk/dimensions.htm

 

The minimum back-to-back is 14.3mm.

 

No amount of your saying otherwise is going to change that. If you want to have a standard with a different back-to-back, please give it your own designation. It is not 00-SF.

 

Suggesting a minimum back-to-back of 14.4mm would leave no tolerance on that dimension, because for RTR wheels 14.4mm is also the maximum. Setting back-to-backs with zero tolerance is clearly not practical.

 

I explained K-crossings at length here:

 

 http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/104207-00-gauge-standards/page-4&do=findComment&comment=2080205

 

I agree that at 16.2mm track gauge, it is on the limiting condition and the only degree of freedom is to increase the track gauge fractionally. Since the track gauge is specified as 16.2mm MINIMUM that is entirely consistent.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[hayfield]

I'm confused and I've been modelling for well over 50 years now!!

 

 

Roythebus

 

Most are, if they buy an EM or P4 product then it will work on EM or P4 track. Mr Average (who buys the bulk of ready to run and funds these wonderful new products) has no idea about 00 gauge track having so many variants. Most have an idea about older stock not working on code 75 track systems (which are quite often described as finescale) but that is as far as it goes

 

Now if they fancy building a bit of track all they need is some rail, perhaps copperclad strip and an 00 roller gauge, simple !!  Trouble is that some of the retailers are just as badly clued up and may be selling the wrong gauges

 

Now I am not having a pop at any suppliers or makers. Markits for instance have 00 gauge code 75 or 100 ( though they have TT gauge fine(14.2) & standard)  C&L now have notes about their own roller gauges, 00sf and now DC Concepts 00 gauge with 1.1 mm flanges ?  http://www.dccconcepts.com/gauges-tools-amp-fasteners/dccconcepts-gauges/2-roller-gauges-with-handle-for-16-5gauge

 

I am even more confused !!

[Grovenor]

DCC Concepts certainly seem confused, "00/H0 special fine" track gauge 16.2 but B to B 14.85 !!

Regards

[Derekstuart]

Surely the only confusion is that many people don't know which name is applied to which set of "rules".

 

Since I came back to the hobby last year I have read only EM, P4, S4 and 00-sf/4-sf/em-2. I know now that with what I have learned about track building that I could change to any one of those, look up the "rules" governing it and carry on as if nothing has changed.

 

It seems to me that it is only the 00 set of rules that are confused and it is purely that people do not know which name is applied to which set of "rules". That P4, S4, EM, 4SF are all so well documented and that "normal" 00 is not tells you all you need to know.

 

As for this debate about whether Peco 100 should be classed as "universal"- oh for heaven sake. It will run pretty much anything that the average chap can buy in a shop so the name is perfectly acceptable. (and the first person to mention that you can also buy N gauge, 0 gauge in a shop...).

One more point- with reference to "slight" wheel drop in 00 turnouts, can I suggest (tin hat standing by) that most people using conventional 00 turnouts (and I say MOST not ALL) won't even be aware of it or care too much. As John says, many more people buy RTR track than read RMW, member of a club or use Templot or C&L products etc.

[Clive Mortimore]

DCC Concepts certainly seem confused, "00/H0 special fine" track gauge 16.2 but B to B 14.85 !!

Regards

Hi Keith

 

I found that confusing the other night when viewing their site, as well as being confused by their terminology. Anyhow I have just looked on their website and the back to back gauges have disappeared......................wot have you done :scratchhead:

[Grovenor]

Hi Keith

 

I found that confusing the other night when viewing their site, as well as being confused by their terminology. Anyhow I have just looked on their website and the back to back gauges have disappeared......................wot have you done :scratchhead:

Still there on the linked page (post #133) when I looked just now!

Regards

[martin_wynne]

Hi Keith

 

I found that confusing the other night when viewing their site, as well as being confused by their terminology. Anyhow I have just looked on their website and the back to back gauges have disappeared......................wot have you done :scratchhead:

 

Hi Clive,

 

 see: http://www.dccconcepts.com/catalogue/h/dccconcepts-gauges

 

Possible uses would be:

 

14.5mm = Romford/Markits wheels running on 4-SF (00-SF), 00-BRMSB, 00-BF.

 

14.75mm = RTR wheels widened to run on DOGA-Fine (15.5mm check gauge).

 

14.85mm = Alan Gibson and Ultrascale wheels running on DOGA-Fine (15.5mm check gauge).

 

None of them are suitable for RTR models on normal 00 (for which the RTR back-to-back should be 14.4mm).

 

Martin.

[Clive Mortimore]

Clive good evening

 

Flatbottom is a bit of a minefield, I think its the Manchester model railway club which have a detailed section on their website about flatbottom chairs and fixings

 

The C&L code 82 rail head is slightly narrower than code 75 bullhead rail, I have been told Peco's Pandrol clips are overscale, C&L do ST baseplates and don't forget in the early years of flatbottom plain track turnouts and crossings were bullhead in chairs on wooden sleepers. I also understand the GWR had concrete sleepers whilst still using bullhead rail and chairs. Whilst these points have nothing to do with your question it shows you the minefield track systems are

 

As for building flatbottom turnouts and crossings Peco also do clips with their concrete sleepers, which give you a third plastic option. Then you have the Colin Craig etched parts for copperclad timbers, I have spoken with Colin and seen his marvellous track system, I may be very mistaken but got the idea they were designed to be very prototypical thus suitable for large radius turnouts and crossings

 

I have in the past used the standard 00sf gauges with code 82 flatbotom rail and they seemed to work well, I also have a set of DC Concepts code 82 00sf roller gauges (they do not fit code 75 bullhead rail). They are fine for copperclad construction and from memory allow the rail head to rotate for use with C&L ST base plates.

 

Which should you use, well for ease of purchase I would go for the ST baseplates from C&L, much better than using either nothing or bullhead rail. If you have a digital calliper just check the 00sf roller gauges are keeping the exact gauge, which is far more important in 00sf than 00 gauge

 

As for Peco using the "universal" terminology, I thought I read it quite recently on their website, but quite often I am wrong. However it does group BF fine and DOGA intermediate together quite well leaving DOGA fine and 00sf to occupy the finer ends of the gauge (tin hat time again I think)

Thanks John

 

I know Colin Graig through DEMU and have spent quite a bit of time discussing track with him. His BR1 and BR2 baseplates look amazing if not time consuming to do. He does track gauges for both code 82 and code 83 rail owing to slight differences in the profile of the railhead. I have looked at the C&L ST baseplates they look easier to apply than Colin's. Colin did remark that he didn't think the C&L ST baseplates gave the rail its 1 in 20 inclination. Many pre-Pandrol clip point work had ST baseplates. It is a pity that no one does the specialist baseplates for the crossing vees and check rails. Colin's slide baseplates would be suitable for earlier flatbottom points as well as those with Pandrol clips. Colin's Pandrol clips are better than the Peco ones and face the right way round. I have seen track made with the Peco Pandrol clips and it doesn't look to bad despite what we have said about them.

[Clive Mortimore]

Still there on the linked page (post #133) when I looked just now!

Regards

Hi Keith

 

They do not show up on their gauges page but when you click on a roller gauge they do, how confusing. And their search engine comes back with nothing found when you type in "back to back gauge".

[Clive Mortimore]

Hi Clive,

 

 see: http://www.dccconcepts.com/catalogue/h/dccconcepts-gauges

 

Possible uses would be:

 

14.5mm = Romford/Markits wheels running on 4-SF (00-SF), 00-BRMSB, 00-BF.

 

14.75mm = RTR wheels widened to run on DOGA-Fine (15.5mm check gauge).

 

14.85mm = Alan Gibson and Ultrascale wheels running on DOGA-Fine (15.5mm check gauge).

 

None of them are suitable for RTR models on normal 00 (for which the back-to-back should be 14.4mm).

 

Martin.

Hi Martin

 

I am even more confused. It is their terminology of Standard, Fine and Special Fine, as Keith has already pointed out they seem to have two meanings for special fine, one being 00Sf and the other for extra wide B2B. :scratchhead:

[martin_wynne]

Hi Martin

 

I am even more confused. It is their terminology of Standard, Fine and Special Fine, as Keith has already pointed out they seem to have two meanings for special fine, one being 00Sf and the other for extra wide B2B. :scratchhead:

 

As I have said a few times, the 00 gauge standards are not difficult to understand.

 

The problem is the Model Trade, who mostly seem not to have the faintest idea what they are selling, or what it is intended for.

 

Ideally it would be DOGA, claiming to represent 00 modellers, who provided a detailed guide to who supplies what, and what is is suitable for. Unfortunately they are adding to the confusion. For example, what is someone buying Markits 00 squared driving axles, which set 14.5mm back to back and are almost impossible to modify, to make of the DOGA standards which say 00 back-to-backs should be either 14.4mm or 14.8mm, see:

 

 http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/commercialwheels.htm

 

 http://www.doubleogauge.com/standards/finescalewheels.htm

 

 Martin.

[RichardS]

"....normal OO." You read it here coined by Martin.

 

It's an excellent concept.

 

 

I wonder if the DOGA stand will see more visitor at Warley than normal this year.

[hayfield]

"....normal OO." You read it here coined by Martin.

 

It's an excellent concept.

 

 

I wonder if the DOGA stand will see more visitor at Warley than normal this year.

 

 

We could all go and say hello to Steven/Ravenser, and take an 00sf turnout for his inspection. Should liven up the stand

[RichardS]

To be honest I've always bypassed the DOGA stand (and also the EM Gauge stand). I've always found the Scalefour people more engaging as a rule. No offence meant of course to others Think I'll make an exception this year.

[RichardS]

And in other news following Chris Leigh's (Dibber25) well documented problems with the back to back measurements of the latest OO Kernow/DJM O2 the December Model Rail has a feature on adjusting back backs by George Dent. Chris also devotes his tailpeice comments to the matter.

 

George's article quotes standard (normal?) as being 14.5 and finescale OO as 14.8.

 

And they list various societies to contact for more info.

 

I think this article will cause great confusion amongst many modellers who are presently unconcerned about such matters running rtr on normal OO track.

 

I hope I'm wrong.

[roythebus]

Being old enough to remember BRMSB b2b was 14.5mm and worked very well on track built to their standards.

 

As for adjusting Markits square-ended axles to a different b2b, there was an article many years ago about modifying this on Romford axles. Put driving wheels in a lathe and take a shaving off the back of the driving wheel boss.

[hayfield]

And in other news following Chris Leigh's (Dibber25) well documented problems with the back to back measurements of the latest OO Kernow/DJM O2 the December Model Rail has a feature on adjusting back backs by George Dent. Chris also devotes his tailpeice comments to the matter.

 

George's article quotes standard (normal?) as being 14.5 and finescale OO as 14.8.

 

And they list various societies to contact for more info.

 

I think this article will cause great confusion amongst many modellers who are presently unconcerned about such matters running rtr on normal OO track.

 

I hope I'm wrong.

 

 

Even more reasons to build your own turnouts and crossings

[Ravenser]

And in other news following Chris Leigh's (Dibber25) well documented problems with the back to back measurements of the latest OO Kernow/DJM O2 the December Model Rail has a feature on adjusting back backs by George Dent. Chris also devotes his tailpeice comments to the matter.

 

George's article quotes standard (normal?) as being 14.5 and finescale OO as 14.8.

 

And they list various societies to contact for more info.

 

I think this article will cause great confusion amongst many modellers who are presently unconcerned about such matters running rtr on normal OO track.

 

I hope I'm wrong.

 

We have been here before, a number of times, with Model Rail. This sort of thing has happened every time there has been a standards debate over the last nearly 20 years. And the common factor has been that the Model Rail piece has completely ignored everything said in the debate and directed modellers at large in a completely different direction. It usually seems to involve reprinting BRMSB material, without necessarily saying that that is what it is.  

 

I respect Chris Leigh and his presence on here, but this has happened too often over the years to ignore the pattern. I cannot help suspecting that the piece has appeared in reaction to all the various threads that have appeared in this bit  of the forum, and the intention  is to signal to modellers as a whole that they should ignore everything that's been said in this area of the forum, all the standards that have been discussed , all the views advanced, and all the people who've advanced them. If everyone here is saying 14.4mm is the de facto modern standard for B2B - Model Rail will tell the hobby at large it's 14.5mm

 

In short, this is Model Rail "stamping out a brushfire" in the form of the current debate

 

P.S. At time of writing I haven't read the Model Rail piece in question

[RichardS]

P.S. At time of writing I haven't read the Model Rail piece in question

 

Obviously I couldn't summarise the whole of  George's and/or Chris's articles but I don't think they emanated from these threads. Chris had been quite critical of the Kernow O2 sample they reviewed, which when returned to Kernow was I understand found to have relatively bad differences in the B2Bs. There were a handful of reported instances of people having similar problems and the QC was criticised. I think CL has now bought two of the said locos - including the one he tested. I have opinions about these articles but others must form their own view after reading them.

 

I doubt the vast majority of people in MR's audience will be reading these particular threads and if they did fall upon them would probably beat a hasty retreat. It is the paradoxical nature of MR that sometimes, I feel, they attempt to cover what to me seems a quite a complex aspect in an abbreviated way. For example - the procedure is rated as 'one screwdriver' of difficulty/complexity and then photographs of loco wheels being removed are shown, using a punch to remove wheels from axles and pressing axles against a gauge in a vice. If anything, the manufactures will be getting more orders for replacement spare parts!

 

In my view if somebody with less experience innocently starts to mess around with the back to back wheel measurements on their models after reading a three page article most of which is photographs they could easily end up with a lot of new problems when, before, things were 'OK'. And it doesn't really matter which standard they use in this circumstance.

 

Incidentally George is photographed using Alan Gibson gauges and also mentions DCC Concepts.

 

Regards

Richard.